linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud (timekeeping

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1235080303.8805.50.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:51:43 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Paul Collins <paul@...ly.ondioline.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud
 (timekeeping_suspended)

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 21:17 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Well, harsh or not is not the question here. 
> 
> Fact is that you call gettimeofday() _before_ the timekeeping code has
> resumed.
> 
> That's a simple ordering problem. timekeeping is in the sysdev class
> as well and it's not the only sysdev which has explicit ordering
> requirements.

And how do I control that ordering ?

I find that a bit fishy ... What about making gettimeofday() in the
timekeeping code work, just return a frozen snapshot of the value on
suspend instead ?

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/